Calling BS on Hubbard’s “The role of Earth”

For anyone outside of Scientology this will sound pretty crazy. For Scientologists, this is gospel, this is real, this is the truth. Here’s Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard from the lecture “The role of Earth“:

The space stations exist out here in the solar system. They use the asteroids. It’s a very peculiar system. This solar system has a planet which is broken up, the asteroid belt. It gives a low-gravity platform for takeoff and so on, and that broken planet is of considerable interest as a space station, that is to say a galactic jump.

Now, there aren’t any planets up at this end of the galaxy which form a good galactic entering spot for incoming transport and other ships. But this beautiful, broken-up planet here with a light-gravity sun and so on, makes a very ideal spot.

And as a result, this area of the solar system got into prominence. It got into a little bit of prominence, and it’s slightly a bone of contention.

And there was – the Fourth Invader Force was here. The Fifth Invader Force came in to use this area, and the name of this solar system is Space Station 33. They started to use this area without suspecting that the Fourth Invader Force had been there for God knows how many skillion years, had been sitting down, and they have their installations up on Mars, and they have a tremendous, screened operation.

asteroid-belt

This isn’t from one of his sci-fi novels. This is part of Scientology proper. Hubbard is serious about this. He is also dead wrong. Scientologists would normally swallow everything Hubbard says without question (questioning anything he says will get a Scientologist in trouble with the Church). And who could blame them? Hubbard is known to present theories as fact – theories that cannot be disproven, and as such one may as well go ahead and believe them.

But this one is hereby blown to bits. By the magazine, “Universe Today” in an article titled, “Why isn’t the asteroid belt a planet?“. And I quote:

If you were to take the entire asteroid belt and form it into a single mass, it would only be about 4% of the mass of our Moon.

And then:

There’s a popular idea that perhaps there was a planet between Mars and Jupiter that exploded, or even collided with another planet. What if most of the debris was thrown out of the solar system, and the asteroid belt is what remains?

We know this isn’t the case for a few of reasons. First, any explosion or collision wouldn’t be powerful enough to throw material out of the Solar System. So if it were a former planet we’d actually see more debris.

Second, if all the asteroid belt bits came from a single planetary body, they would all be chemically similar. The chemical composition of Earth, Mars, Venus, etc are all unique because they formed in different regions of the solar system. Likewise, different asteroids have different chemical compositions, which means they must have formed in different regions of the asteroid belt.

So there you have it. Hubbard’s assertion that the asteroid belt is a “broken-up planet” is BS. So does this put the rest of that lecture into question?

82 thoughts on “Calling BS on Hubbard’s “The role of Earth”

  1. Because the tautology of “What is true for you is true for you,” rings so sweetly to our ears, Hubbard had great success substituting confirmation bias and agreement for empirical facts.  That broken up planet may have never existed nor been ejected from the solar system, but it is good to eject the rubbish of Scientology from our systems.

  2. “So there you have it. Hubbard’s assertion that the asteroid belt is a “broken-up planet” is BS.

    The only thing this news disproves is that the asteroids aren’t the remains of a planet that exploded – which wasn’t actually Hubbard’s origination but a “scientific fact” at the time that he apparently assumed was true. Like everybody else.

    A similar thing happened with regard to The Piltdown Man, an incident described in *A History of Man.” A couple days ago on Mike Rinder’s blog, a poster stated that “Piltdown Man was cited in L. Fraud’s work as a scientific fact, only to be revealed as a fake a few years after he published (and there were serious doubts at the time of publication).”

    No, Hubbard only said about the Piltdown Man that the incident was “so named not because it is accurately the real [real per science] Piltdown Man but because it has some similarity.” (HOM) In other words, he was only going by what was thought back then to be a scientific finding – and even at that, he said it only has “some similarity.”

    Getting back to the OP about asteroids: “So does this put the rest of that lecture into question?”

    Not at all. 🙂

    1. The analogy to the Pillows Man doesn’t really hold, because in the Role of Earth, Hubbard bases his fake recall on that “scientific fact” of the time. And that is the heart of the BS. I knew you would try to come to his rescue, Marildi. A scientologist’s capacity to justify Hubbard’s lies are excellent examples of confirmation bias.

      1. I’m going to ignore the Ad Hom, dear Geir, because you only do it when you’re flustered. 😛

        You say “Hubbard bases his fake recall on that ‘scientific fact’ of the time.”

        How was his recall based on the “fact” (thought to be at the time) that the asteroids were from a planet that exploded? As far as I know, he only talks about the asteroids as asteroids, regardless of whether or not they were from a “broken planet.”

        1. Read his quote again. And check the transcript from that link. He rambles on and on with Sci-fi expecting his followers to swallow every word without question. And they do. And when some of his stories are disproven, his followers will come to his rescue with indoctrinated confirmation bias. Without exception.

          1. I did read it again. Nothing there that indicates his statements about the asteroids are based on their having come from a broken-up planet. If you see it otherwise, please quote what you’re referring to.

          2. But the situation with “standard Science” is exactly the same. And even with the Governments and news.

            For example Moon landing, seems that evidence points that Moon landing was faked. But nobody until recently questioned that. You will probably disagree strongly, because you trust to science too much. (to give you at least one video with evidence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsZImxoyc8I )

            People do not even have a choice. Whenever science publishes something, people cannot even check whether it is true or not, all they can is to agree (most choose this) or to disagree.

            At least with Ron, most people will not trust him. But science? Most people trust science without questioning.

            1. Ok, the laser experiment is a nice evidence. But can it negate all the counter rather obvious evidence that Moon landing was faked?

              How should one choose what evidence is true, and what is not? And you did not comment on the specific evidence that i posted. Can you say anything about that ?

              Maybe some “Marcabians” placed stuff there to reflect laser beams back to Earth ? Maybe the laser simply reflects from any nearby rocks on the Moon ?

              I personally do not think that there is no technology, i think that there is more advanced technology to travel even into more farther planets. But the humans on Earth may not have that technology. Other, nearby civilizations always had.

            2. That site I linked to pulls apart the so called evidence of a faked moon landing one by one. Like the Flag flapping etc. No need to invent Marcabians, reptile aliens, advanced technology, time travel, hollow Earth or even a flat Earth to explain what can be so much easier explained using Occam’s Razor ☺️

    2. Interesting. I took a new look at the History of Man and Hubbard’s reference to the Piltdown Man. He does in fact attribute specific fake recalls to this “incident” he names… The Piltdown. He takes a false “scientific fact”, use it to gain credibility and builds upon it to create false tech. The Piltdown Man is even a better example than the OP. You are right about comparing the two – and the OP is indeed no worse than the Piltdown. As I scientologist, I would so easily justify for Hubbard when reading the History of Man.

      Let’s hear it from Ron himself:

      “Man’s first real Manhood is found in the Piltdown, a creature not an ape, yet not entirely a Man. It is so named not because it is accurately the real Piltdown Man but because it has some similarity.

      The Piltdown contains freakish acts of strange “logic,” of demonstrating dangerous on one’s fellows, of eating one’s wife and other somewhat illogical activities. The Piltdown teeth were enormous and he was quite careless as to whom and what he bit and often very much surprised at the resulting damage.

      Obsessions about biting, efforts to hide the mouth and early familial troubles can be found in the Piltdown. It is a wonderful area in which to locate GE overt acts.”

      1. “He does in fact attribute specific FAKE recalls to this ‘incident’ he names… The Piltdown.”

        “He takes a false ‘scientific fact’, uses it to gain credibility and builds upon it to create FALSE tech.”

        Both of the above are examples of circular reasoning or Begging the Question – a logical fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

        As to the claim in the OP, I’ll say again what I wrote above: The only thing this news disproves is that the asteroids aren’t the remains of a planet that exploded – which wasn’t actually Hubbard’s origination but a “scientific fact” at the time that he apparently assumed was true. Like everybody else.

        So if you want to discredit Hubbard’s research claim(s), you’ll have to give a better argument than what you’ve done so far.

        1. How about in the state of man lectures when Hubbard LIES about killing general Prescott? It’s a very provable lie. Just get an encyclopedia.

          1. “Just get an encyclopedia.”

            Did you look in one, Sylvia? I ask because this is one of those stories that critics like to pass around to one another, and my guess is that most of them who do so are only repeating what someone else said.

            To begin with, Hubbard referred to Prescott as “General” in that lecture, but according to Wikipedia, Prescott was a colonel. However, there was indeed a general at Breed’s/Bunker Hill, by the name of General Putnam – and Putnam did die there.

            Hubbard wasn’t infallible – and said so himself. And pc’s are known to get details wrong or to get two or more incidents mixed up.

            In any case, Hubbard’s reason for telling the story was to illustrate a point he wanted to make about governments. It wasn’t in order to brag, as critics might like to dub in – and in fact, he noted that the students were shocked by what he had said about killing their “favorite General.” In other words, his telling about it wasn’t exactly an attempt at self-glorification.

            But let’s say that for whatever reason he did lie about committing what he described as an overt. Personally, I think the far more significant thing with regard to the subject of overts is that he developed a tech to handle them. Of course, that usually gets put down too, but I bet most if not all of the posters here, and critics everywhere, who have been audited on overts had good wins.

            Cheers.

        2. Back to the Piltdown Incident that Hubbard claims PCs should audit. Remember that the History of Man first came out under the title “What to audit”. This means that Hubbard instructed the Piltdown Incident to be taken up in session as though it was real and as though he himself had either audited on others or himself. This is outrageous and far worse than just a mention of something that scientists erroneously believed to be true at the time.

          1. Well, the first chapter goes over “what to audit” – and it wasn’t to audit the HOM incidents directly (unless they read on a meter). Back then, creative processing was being done and the reader is referred to Scn 8-8008, which was all about auditing the pc on mock-ups. The main purpose of the book HOM was that the auditor needed to know the principal incidents on the track so that in observing indicators, s/he would be able to come up with mock-ups that were applicable to the pc. In subsequent research, of course, it was discovered that creative processes were limited, and the tech got changed accordingly so that HOM was no longer a direct or indirect part of auditing. But that is its history in a nutshell.

            1. Which only underlines my point, which is this: Hubbard manufactured tech based on Sci-fi mock-ups that he led his followers to believe and through placebo they would “run” and get gains from.

              BTW; Do you think Hubbard would include the Piltdown Incident without believing it existed through recalls from PCs or himself?

            2. “…Sci-fi mock-ups”

              Still still Begging the question?

              In answer to your question for me, first I’ll say that I got the idea that Hubbard came across an incident that involved some pre-historic “creature” who was similar to what he knew of the supposed Piltdown Man, so he named the incident after him. Now, note that he didn’t try to say it WAS the Piltdown Man – although that might have been more convincing and “scientific sounding” – because he factually saw that it was only similar.

              And to give you a direct answer to your question, no I don’t think Hubbard would include an incident he didn’t believe existed, through his or others’ recalls.

            3. marildi – In general I always enjoy what you post on any blog platform. The OP is bringing into question the validity of a “truth.” Your response included “The main purpose of the book HOM was that the auditor needed to know the principal incidents on the track so that in observing indicators, s/he would be able to come up with mock-ups that were applicable to the pc.”

              The post is questioning the truth or validity that this is in fact a principal incident on the “track.” I have gained from what I did on the bridge but I am willing and able to view the fact that all “true” statements are not actually true or valid. You bring up if it doesn’t read on the meter. The OP, to me, is challenging the “fact” stated that this is a “principal incident on the track.” Is is really “on the track” or merely on Ron’s “track” or merely invented or stated as a factual incident when it truly isn’t.

              The fact that many have made gains is not confirmation of the stated “facts” or “truths”. These are the statements of gain in perception, recognition, or awareness for whatever reason.

              I have no plan to go back and forth with you on this. I merely want to bring attention to any assumption that this is actually a “principal incident on the track.” It may be that one or more people in session read on a meter on this wording. That, in my opinion, does not a fact make it. In that paradigm it merely makes it a reading item.

              Any “gains” from running this as an incident may have no relation to whether or not the description of the said incident is true or even similar to what may have been true. Just another view of this discussion.

            4. Still Awakening: “It may be that one or more people in session read on a meter on this wording. That, in my opinion, does not a fact make it. In that paradigm it merely makes it a reading item. Any ‘gains’ from running this as an incident may have no relation to whether or not the description of the said incident is true or even similar to what may have been true. Just another view of this discussion.”

              Well put. And I have no disagreement with what you say. When I mentioned the purpose of the book in terms of “the principal incidents on the track,” it was really Hubbard’s purpose I was referring to.

              Anyway, thanks for your view. I think it’s quite valid. And yet the tech is still “workable” – just like the ol’ man said. 🙂

            5. marildi – I don’t see it that way. But, then, that is my opinion and experience. I don’t see the the “tech” is workable if sometimes it is valid. If your car starts sometimes would you consider it workable. I would agree that some people make gains. I would also agree that some people don’t make gains. The validity of any “tech” on any subject is does it work each and every time. Otherwise I would put in the bright idea, maybe, or sometimes category and not want to bet on it.

              I care not what any “old man” proclaims. I do appreciate awareness of life in general and I do also appreciate your ideas, viewpoints and statements. As one trained in a science background I also know that when any datum doesn’t support the theory and hypothesis then the original concept is either incorrect or incomplete.

              If were to say the “tech” is sometimes workable for “some” people then we would be in agreement. Until then our agreement is that we both appreciate each other and our personal ideas. When I evaluate and look at anything he wrote I see it for what it is. I start with no bias. I have no personal bias whether it be true, false, or an unknown maybe.

            6. Still Awakening: “I would agree that some people make gains. I would also agree that some people don’t make gains. The validity of any ‘tech’ on any subject is does it work each and every time. Otherwise I would put in the bright idea, maybe, or sometimes category and not want to bet on it.”

              Other than strictly mechanistic subjects (perhaps), I think we would have to put all comparable subjects in that category, including medicine and other methodologies pertaining to physical health – as well as those intended for mental or spiritual well-being. I would ask you, does any branch of psychotherapy or even Buddhism work “each and every time”?

              Honestly, it was never my experience that “some people make gains – some people don’t.” Rather, it was the great majority of people who made gains.

              Nevertheless, the truth of the matter is that neither of us, or anyone else, can quote a valid scientific study of just how workable the tech is – as there hasn’t been one. And the evaluation of workability in such a test would have to be similar to the results of pharmaceutical testing – where the best that can be expected is for the majority of people to be helped. There are just too many variables where people are part of the equation.

              According to what I’ve read or heard of scientology results as practiced by independents, such as the Dror Center in Israel or auditors like Trey Lotz, Chris Black and many others, the tech is indeed workable – by the same standards as other subjects, minimally, i.e. workable for the majority. Just as an aside, the fact that independents seem to be capable of separating out the flaws of the founder from the tech is probably relevant.

              “I care not what any ‘old man’ proclaims.”

              I sorta threw in “the ol’ man” bit just to tease you and Geir a little. 🙂

              “When I evaluate and look at anything he wrote I see it for what it is. I start with no bias. I have no personal bias whether it be true, false, or an unknown maybe.”

              I believe you. And, believe it or not, I try to do the same.

              Thanks for the comm. I appreciate your input.

            7. I would reserve the right to remain sceptical to claims of workability from those who make profits from selling the methodology

            8. Still Awakening (Geir and others too), I’d like to share a link with you to an article I came across a few years ago and just recently read again. I think it describes very well not only the flaws of Hubbard and the organization but the significant contribution of scientology to the subject of transformation. You reminded me of it because the author, a former scientologist, seems to have been able to step back and take a broad, unbiased look at it – something we might only expect could be done in time, yet the article was published in 1989 (in Gnosis Magazine). Here are the first couple paragraphs:
              ——————————-
              “Scientology is perceived by the public as a cult, and its founder, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, as the Howard Hughes of New Age religion. Psychological academia has never taken the subject seriously as a science, nor has the clerical community given the structure credence as a religion. Even esotericists veer sharply away, considering it beneath their intellectual dignity. But despite its discomforting eccentricities, the Scientological paradigm is worth more than a cursory glance by any serious student of the Western spiritual tradition. Its roots are firmly planted in the fertile gardens of both Eastern and Western philosophy and its influence has diffused irrevocably into the groundwater of the contemporary Human Potential Movement.

              “Scientology’s contribution to 20th century esotericism is analogous to Theosophy’s contribution in the last century. Just as Madam Blavatsky’s ‘secret doctrine’ engendered numerous progeny, so did Hubbard’s methodology provide raw material for Frederick Perls’ Gestalt therapy, Jack Horner’s Eductivism, Alexander Everett’s Mind Dynamics, Werner Erhard’s est, Stuart Emery’s Lifespring, Paul Twichell’s Eckankar, Lewis Bostwick’s Berkeley Psychic Institute, Irene Mumford’s Dianasis, John Galusha’s Idenics, and Frank Gerbode’s Metapsychology, as well as countless lesser lights. Either directly or obliquely, it is probable that no other methodology has had more profound an influence on New Age thought than Hubbard’s.” http://www.larabell.org/ladder.html
              —————————–

              Probably because the article was written back in 1989, a number of other spin-offs of scientology weren’t mentioned, which came about later – Knowledgism, for one.

            9. Yeah, that was the best overview of scientology of any I know of – and in relatively few words, amazingly.

              I don’t necessarily agree with the author that Hubbard was s “mad” genius. Driven by a large ego, yes, but no more mad than many others who are so driven.

              I do think there is reason to believe Hubbard was intent on “smashing” his name into history, but I also think he was sincere about the tech being effective, because that was how he was going to do it (make his place in history). Unfortunately, he proved the validity of his own datum – “must have, can’t have” – in that he himself lessened his chances.

              He also proved his sincerity – up to the last days of his life – with regard to entities.

            10. marildi – You and I have much in common. Personally, I would credit the “New Thought” movement and concepts with more influence than just scientology in new age ideas

              . I never doubt the gains I had nor those of another. I have come to question whether that due to the “workable tech” as compared to the valid spiritual and personal increase in awareness that occur. As I have met many who made gains from EST, Science of Mind, etc. The fact that some have standardized some drills, exercises, processes, etc may have more to do with how we perceive the value of scn, et all versus other new age subjects.

              As we do not have the original founders, creators and major influencer’s of scientology to question we will never fully know. I wish Hubbard had been more willing to outline who, how and in what manner those that came before him had influenced him and the doctrine he left.

              As to these wonderings and the original OP of this blog – the truth is that we can, should and always most likely will, find statements in this “tech” that are not able to be verified as to the details that were written or spoken. Whether the role of earth as a prison planet is has he stated are actually not near as important. The fact that some enforce this concept and dogma as a required agreement is the forwarding of an aberration in its own doing.

              If we can leave all personal gains as truly personal and not explectations and “must” haves then we would see the benefits and gains distinct from any dogma. This, in my opinion, would require any such gains being free from judgement and that is quite hard to do. I am sure this question and concept will be with us in discussion for a long time.

              However I have learned from and enjoyed this communication over the blog I want you to know I don’t plan to have this discussion here. I neither wish to influence the thoughts of others, or yourself, nor promote the effectiveness of the gains or ideas I may have. That journey is for each to make. I do not feel my value is to delineate the desired outcome.

              As I stated earlier, you and I have much in common. But, we also have our own personal viewpoints and understandings. I do not wish or want for these personal views to be more valid than the other. They are, in fact, personal and thus I would expect we may never find total agreement. You and I would probably concur that the right and differences of viewpoint are both correct in the playing of the game of life and living.

              The value of open and to some degree free communication of ideas and concepts is of value and I would expect will continue for years beyond us. I appreciate Geir for creating and maintaining this blog, as I also appreciate all who post, comment and add to the discussion. The group of viewpoints adds to the gains to be had by all, in my opinion. A wish a good day to all concerned, including you.

            11. Still Awakening: “Personally, I would credit the ‘New Thought’ movement and concepts with more influence than just scientology in new age ideas.”

              Yes, of course. But it was interesting that Tom Joyce in his article said “it is probable that no other methodology has had MORE [my caps] profound an influence on New Age thought than Hubbard’s.”

              Be that as it may, you made a good point here: “The fact that some have standardized some drills, exercises, processes, etc may have more to do with how we perceive the value of scn, et all versus other new age subjects.”

              And Hubbard himself did say that “Scientology is a workable system. This does not mean it is the best possible system or a perfect system. Remember and use that definition. Scientology is a workable system.” (Safeguarding Technology HCO PL)

              Your last paragraph: “The value of open and to some degree free communication of ideas and concepts is of value and I would expect will continue for years beyond us. I appreciate Geir for creating and maintaining this blog, as I also appreciate all who post, comment and add to the discussion. The group of viewpoints adds to the gains to be had by all, in my opinion. A wish a good day to all concerned, including you.”

              Very well said once again. And you have a good day too.

  3. de·lu·siondəˈlo͞oZHən/nounan idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

  4. Delusion: A false personal belief that is not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and is not explained by a person’s usual cultural and religious concepts (so that, for example, it is not an article of faith). A delusion may be firmly maintained in the face of incontrovertible evidence that it is false. Delusions are a frequent feature of schizophrenia.
    ~from: medicinenet.com

  5. Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, debilitating mental illness that affects about 1% of the population — more than 2 million people in the United States alone.
    With the sudden onset of severe psychotic symptoms, the individual is said to be experiencing acute psychosis. Psychotic means out of touch with reality or unable to separate real from unreal experiences.
    ~from Medical Author: Roxanne Dryden-Edwards, MD Medical Editor: Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD

  6. Hows about a thetan (static) having no mass, etc. but lungs where glycol is injected…. Yes and for this “no mass”-thetans you need DC-8’s to transport them to earth to blow them up and to catch these “nothings” with ribbon-bands….

    After reading this (and similar other) nonsense more than 30 years ago, I knew that I didn´t loose much (of my OT-III-eternity) by leaving the Co$ years before.

    1. On the glycol and the transportation, Hubbard was talking about their bodies. And these bodies were blown up in volcanos on Earth. Presumably.

      1. Sorry, according to Hubbard, not one Body was brought to earth, only frozen thetans (“nothings”). Listen carefully to Cl-VIII-tape 6810C03 with the title “Assists”:

        El Con Hubbard:
        “The trick was to shoot somebody, disable somebody, very often a needle into a lung, and at the same time to hit him with frozen alcohol and glycol, which
        preparation is guaranteed TO PICK UP A THETAN. All they had to do was PICK HIM UP (rem.: the thetan, a “nothing”) and put him into a refrigerator, and they had him boy. Because if he tried to exteriorize from the body, there he was frozen. And they threw him into collection points. Boxed them up in boxes, threw them into space planes, which are the exact copies – DC8’s, the DC8 airplane is the exact copy of the space plane of that day. No difference. Except the DC8 had fans, propellers on it and the space plane didn’t.”

        Have a look at the “restimulative” cover of “Dianetics – Evolution of a science”. There you can see they are carrying boxes with ice-blocks of frozen thetans, and NOT frozen people.

        So they bring these ice-blocks with frozen “nothings” to earth, place them near volcanoes which didn´t exist at this time throw atomic bombs in the volcanoes, for what ? To unfreeze the frozen “nothings” ? To catch the unfrozen “nothings” later with electronic ribbon bands ?…..

        1. Let’s debate that, never seen that cover before, it supports your interpretation!

          The trick was to shoot somebody, disable somebody, very often a needle into a lung, and at the same time to hit him with frozen alcohol and glycol

          note the words chosen, “and at the same time”

          So I interpret that as common shooting (with a weapon), AND the needle concoction “picks him up” I can’t picture this nonsense… what you inject the fluid, then shoot them, then watch for a little ice cube to pop out of the pores of the skin or their ass or what? explain that

          I’m an animal lover, but can someone please try that on an insect, fish or a lab rat?

          Another possibility… body size depends on the planet you were born on, maybe the bodies were small enough for the boxes on that cover, and no ice cubes were pooped out? and what about beings on much larger planets? I’m sure if aliens exist their size is as varied as the size of planets right? like we know we had dinosaurs, they were relatively huge to us and they’re native

          Let’s get neal degrass to chime in on this one, he’s (irresponsibly imo) defended scientology publically and I’d like to fix that!

          1. >>> Another possibility… body size depends on the planet you were born on, maybe
            >>> the bodies were small enough for the boxes on that cover, and no ice cubes were
            >>> pooped out?

            So why should the bodies of the victims be smaller than the bodies of those who are carrying the boxes ?

            El Con Hubbard:
            “And then troops,….., were fed in against the POPULATION …… ”

            And when they were using DC-8 like planes than the size of the bodies must have been like that of humans….. oh yes, for ages they were driving cars, wearing clothes etc. like in the 50’s….. no progress there. From the same tape:

            El Con Hubbard:
            “….PEOPLE at that particular time and place were walking around in clothes which looked very remarkably like the clothes they wear this very minute. And the cars they drove looked exactly the same, and the trains they ran looked the same, and the boats they had looked the same. Circa 1950, 1960.”

            So if they were wearing clothes like in the 50’s/60’s they must have been the same size – otherwise they wouldn´t be the same.

            And he is talking about PEOPLE and over-POPULATION, not about dinosaurs, creatures or aliens.

            BTW, since when dinosaurs were paying income tax ?:

            El Con Hubbard:
            “One of the mechanisms they used was to tell them to come in for an INCOME TAX investigation.”

            Look, all this Hubbard-nonsense is only the vomit of a totally stoned, insane druggie.

            1. I’m just throwing out hypothetical debate… none of it is making sense, his lectures all sound very off the cuff, his “research” has nothing to do with science

              we’re left to interpret “pick up a thetan”, being vague when it comes time to giving specific validity or proof is one of hubbard’s frequent go to methods of non-answers and avoiding reality, he plays that card every time the subject gets tough and real, he never answers the real questions of religion even remotely

              what he considers fact is not based on real research, it’s based on the size of his ego at the given moment when he was talking which determined how much credit he gave his imagination

              paraphrasing some neal degrass for convenience

              –if your call your god the ever reducing list of mysteries, get ready for your god to be undone, because one by one science is solving those mysteries

              –the day your religion is disproven by science and you hold onto false ideas, marks the end of your religion

  7. Nice myth busting! Amazing how when we were inside these things sounded plausable!

    the science of “knowing how to know” I guess if you believe hard enough you can “just know things” and enough people listen that you’d actually grow the ego to blurt out this hilarious nonsense or believe it

    bubbles of belief in the fantasy of immortality is a fun game for escaping the thought of mortality

    it’s cathartic to brainwash these things out of your mind once you’re out of the bubble

    Here’s another one where he discusses being on Venus where there’s freight locomotives

    This is a relevant hubbard qoute

    “considerations take rank over the mechanics of matter, energy, space and time”

    paraphrased, beliefs are more important that facts, religion is above science lol

    paraphrased, live in a bubble

    and this gem is relevant

    AXIOM 27. AN ACTUALITY CAN EXIST FOR ONE INDIVIDUALLY, BUT WHEN
    IT IS AGREED WITH BY OTHERS IT CAN THEN BE SAID TO BE A
    REALITY.

    paraphrased, delusion is actual in scientology

    paraphrased, LIVE IN A BUBBLE

    if you follow scientology, you must agree to live in a bubble, the end goal being that bubble becomes a reality, but non believers spoil it! so it’s only for scientologists, therefore they have to get rid of the rest of us, disconnection, genocide (implied in the book ironically named “science of survival”)

    and that’s how you can “never had a second wife” and “we don’t practice disconnection” and “we’re a religion not a business”, “zenu, never heard of that”, and other many other lies…

    they’re not liars, they’re ACTUALLY believing their own BS

  8. I don’t remember the reference, but he said gravity didn’t existed until it was agreed upon by beings who were slaves on a city which was built in the middle of space, it had grown so very big they started to Imagine it collapsing on itself.
    Can you Imagine the whole universe evolving without gravity?
    Holy shit!!!

    Maybe Marildi could help us with the exact reference?

        1. It’s the first lecture – “OPENING: WHAT IS TO BE DONE ON COURSE,” 1 December 1952.

          I did a word search on a PDF copy I have of the PDC transcripts. The word I searched was “Arslycus,” which was the name of the civilization Rafael was referring to.

          1. “Probably 30 trillion years ago, or something like that, E=mc2 (or whatever that formula is) probably wasn’t true. Probably nobody had agreed to that yet, or something of the sort. I’m sure—there’s an old civilisation called Arslycus that you’ll find on an E-meter with the pc. By the way, if you want to make your pc terribly tired and worn out, if you want to put him under good control and start him down the automaticity curve— that’s another one—if you want to put him down the automaticity curve rapidly, just suggest to him something about Arslycus and get him just to run a little corner of Arslycus, and then sympathise with him and leave him there.” Ron Hubbard

            “He’s spent something like ten thousand lives in Arslycus, on the average, and all he did was work. And he did the same job over and over. And when he died they could reach out and bring him back and put him in another body. And he was a trained artisan, and they didn’t even educate him again; they grew the body very rapidly and they put him back on the same job. And the job would have to do with polishing the third row of bricks, and that would be all there was to the job—polishing the third row of bricks. Arslycus got worse and worse. It got bigger and bigger. It was not built on a planet; it was just built in space. And it got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, and one of these days I’m sure one of these slaves suddenly got the big idea of mass. And it sounded so reasonable, it sounded so logical to everybody that you had to start going slow with Arslycus because you would overdo the mass formula, that everybody agreed to this. The mass formula became a fact and Arslycus broke to pieces and scattered around in that particular part of the sky as being of too great a mass to sustain itself. Before that it was just buildings built on thin air, and roadways going between buildings. And it blew to pieces and all broke up and everybody fell through the sky, and were very happy to see it gone. But I think that that is about the point where you got the law of gravity coming in strongly. And after that the law of gravity began to affect itself on the universe more and more and more and more and more and you started to get all kinds of suns and planets and the most fantastic array of things.” Ron Hubbard

            So there was matter before there were gravity, suns and planets 🙂

            1. Rafael: “So there was matter before there were gravity, suns and planets 🙂 ”

              It may very well be that Elizabeth’s personal recalls which relate to this are applicable. She talks about “the theta universe” and says it was not solid and there was no MEST in it. But she also talks about the people and things in it that were perceivable. What I think she means is that it was a much LESS solid universe.

              Interestingly, others (non-Scientologists) have stated a similar idea, based on experiences they’ve had in meditation and out-of-body experiences (exteriorization). They claim that there are realities in “higher dimensions” that are “less dense.”

              One of them is a man named Jurgen Ziewe, who wrote a book titled *Multidimensional Man*. Here’s a quote from an interview he did:

              “I quickly realised that there were counterparts to our world, not just one but multiples, each counterpart on a higher vibrational level, progressively changing from the one beneath it, so that in the end there were barely any similarities to the physical one. The only thing that hadn’t changed was its unique feeling signature. I began to realise that this principle applied to everything in existence. Everything had a ‘soul’, for want of a better word, with not just one, but several different layers, layers of energy, which corresponded to layered worlds, stretching right to the point of origin where it is no more than a sound or an arrangement of sounds.”

              http://www.multidimensionalman.com/Multidimensional-Man/Interview_with_Jurgen_Ziewe.html

              (Just to let you know, I’ll be away from my computer for several hours, but will answer any reply later today.)

            2. “I think we cannot find anyone who would attempt an intelligent defence of this ”

              Yeah, and don’t get me started on the eerie similarity of Arskycus and Arselickers…..

            3. Rafael, when many people are independently making the same discoveries, I don’t think it should be glibly passed off.

              In an earlier comment, you asked, “Could we go to before the big bang?”

              Did you know that the Buddha recalled not just one but several big bangs? I think this is the same idea as what physicists are now theorizing and calling a “cyclic universe.”

              Btw, if Ron was the one who said he had recalled several big bangs, you guys would be all over it. 😛 🙂

              Now return to the moment just before the big bang and tell me when you’re there. 😀

            4. Glibly? ….Glibly? Marildi you are killing me😃

              But, let me hand this over to you:
              You really put all your heart into this. And that , I think, is more valuable than anything else we could agree or disagree about.

              If you love it, them it is valuable, and that is all there is to it. I completely respect that.🙂

            5. Wow, Rafael, nice words. Quotable even!

              You have the heart of a poet, and that can’t be beat either. ❤

  9. here’s some fish in a barrel

    http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html

    From “State of OT”, SHSBC #296. 23 May 1963:
    “And although I don’t think you’d have very much pleasure out of kissing a girl from Jupiter – that’s a heavy-gravity planet, and if you stepped on the planet Jupiter in one of these meat bodies that you presently have, you would become a pancake promptly, you see? And what atmosphere it has lies in seas of liquid air and so on. You might say that this is somewhat rigerous as an environment, not completely similar to Russia but.. [laughter]. So you do get these various variations. And it’s not all that horrifying however.
    You find somebody running around the planet Jupiter, he’d be built to withstand that climatic condition, and the gravitic condition and so forth, and his legs might be a bit modified and his arms and that sort of thing, but he probably would look like an Eskimo.”

    –probably? if you’re so powerful you can pop onto venus why not visit jupiter while you’re at it? or just “know” by osmosis?

    someone’s clearly riffing out his butt off stories they probably heard over dinner

    From Outline of Technique 80, Route to Infinity, 19 May 1952:
    “And by the way, you don’t need experience. That’s another operation. There is no sense at all in your having to remember having been taught how to do something or other. There is no sense in that. You should be able to suddenly BE the thing, and therefore you can do it.
    To BE is to KNOW.

    You should be able, by the way, not ever to have to remember an engineering formula or anything like this. You don’t go back down the time track to look at the book in a fascimile. That is a secondary operation and not an optimum one!

    What you do is go to the library and look at it and go so fast and come back so fast that you don’t know you’ve gone!

    Somebody walks up to you and says, “What is the wavelength of sputter-guffs?”

    And you say, “Well, it’s 8216 to the minus umpf.”

    And they say, “Well, how did you know that? My, that was bright! How did you know that?”

    “Well, I just knew it.” ”

    –paraphrased, feel free just make shit up that’s totally valid (long as there’s a sucker that bites)!

    Mars
    RealMedia
    From “Role of Earth”, 30 October 1952:
    “..the Fourth Invader Force was here. The Fifth Invader Force came in to use this area, and the name of this solar system is Space Station 33. They started to use this area without suspecting that the Fourth Invader Force had been there for God knows how many skillion years, had been sitting down, and they have their installations up on Mars, and they have a tremendous, screened operation.
    The Martian operation is a fascinating operation, simply because it has gone into 100 percent holding force. And it does everything it does with tremendous coversion. It’s sitting behind a defense screen of enormous size, and nobody – it’s practically impossible to penetrate that, except as a thetan. And if you penetrate it as a thetan, you go through the Martian screen, and they got you! ”

    — mars rovers didn’t see these installations

    more here

    http://www.insolitology.com/topten/scientology/

    we need a wiki for these, start a religion, call it pseudosciencetology

  10. wait, nevermind cosmos, we can debunk these myths right here on earth

    [Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course lecture no. 43, 19 Dec 1952]

    But completely aside from that fact, Earth has been used consistently as a prison; and it is a prison, and it is heavily screened. There are installations in Mongolia, there are installations in the Pyrenees here on Earth, and there are installations down in the Mountains of the Moon in Africa which pick up, very often, people on death.”

      1. probably by the same way that we can ask the question

        who are the 270 clears that hubbard cleared as he said he did in the book dianetics, and ask where are they?

        We can can also ask the question where are the cleared people who where cleared a little later from Dianetics era and up to the 1965 time period?

        Maybe some were cleared in independent auditing groups?

        But, how come they do not come out of the closet you might say?

      2. Geir – why debunk it at all. The person making the statement of fact can provide the evidence or support. Is there ever a way to prove a negative or a false statement?

          1. I do not know how to debunk this. When a personal experience, belief or thought is stated as a fact for all human’s then I would say the evidence to support such should come from the person making the “fact” statement. There may be some evidence that does support this theory and some that does not support it.

            Even then it could be true for some and not true for others. Just as claims of gains are made by some due to the “workable tech” or “exact tech” – in those statements too I would feel the demand to proof up their statements is theirs to make. Any debunking could then look at the actual evidence given and not just argue about the statement of “fact” outcome that was originally made.

            If we were given all original evidence, in addition to any hypothesis and/or theory then all could see and test any of these and then give support or debunk.

            If the statement claimed, such as earth as a prison planet, has no evidence then we would not support that as a statement of proven truth. It may be true, or it may be false. If is a false statement then we could “debunk” it by seeing the flaw in the logic, the premise, the hypothesis, the theory or the supporting “evidence” given.

            If the scientific method was in use we would have all of these components to either verify, debunk or propose new additional data.

            For such a simple idea I sure made this a long explanation, didn’t I? 🙂

      3. I was wondering that myself, can anyone define wtf “screens” are besides a new definition he pulled out of his butt?

        let me guess, it’s some vague “theta” wavelength?

        speaking of wavelengths, that’s something he got specific about, can these be debunked?

        https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/vosper/04.html

        Four bands of mental energy have been discovered by Hubbard – Aesthetic, Analytical Thought, Emotion and Effort. Aesthetic wavelengths are estimated at 0.00000000000000000000000002 cm.; which is very fine indeed and certainly not measurable, with any accuracy, by normal means, (Hubbard does not specify how he came to measure it); Analytical Thought is given as 0.0000002 cm.; Emotion is given as 0.02 cm.; and Effort would appear to be either 0.0 cm. or Infinity, which is curious.

  11. Yes indeed. Let’s see if it is possible to somehow vindicate Hubbard for uttering this nonsense too😉

    Holy Shit!!!
    Could que go to before the big bang?
    😅😅😅

    1. “Could we go to before the big bang?”

      I’ve asked that more than a few times. The BB is the only incident that we should all have in common with one another and that one is still ongoing . . . ! There could be your wall of fire. But no. Nothing that we experience and know is a matchup for that violent an incident.

      I think we are only beginning to scratch the dirt from the window of understanding the spacetime in which we live and are a part.

      1. IMHO all the big questions are still unanswered, and might remain so forever. All we can do is create our own meaning, be as artistic as we can about it, and hope for the best……..

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s